SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie
A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school. Prosecutors say that she violated Minnesota's child pornography statute, which bans distributing sexually explicit pictures of underaged subjects. But a legal brief filed this week by the ACLU of Minnesota says that this is ridiculous. Charging a teenager for taking a nude selfie means the state is charging the supposed victim—an absurd result that the legislature can't have intended when it passed Minnesota's child pornography statute, the ACLU argues.
The case is being heard by a juvenile court in Rice County—about an hour south of the Twin Cities. Because this is juvenile court, there's a lot we don't know including the name of the teenager. We don't even know if the selfie in question was a photo or a video. What we do know comes from the ACLU's legal brief, which includes a brief description of the case. According to the ACLU, the anonymous teen sent a nude selfie to a classmate over Snapchat. The recipient apparently took a screenshot of the message and shared it with others at school without the girl's consent. One of the classmates alerted the police in Faribault, Minnesota, which is presumably where the girl goes to school.
Officials decided to charge the girl with the "felony sex offense of knowingly disseminating pornographic work involving a minor to another person." An adult convicted of this crime can face up to seven years in prison. As a 14-year-old, the girl in this case isn't facing a criminal prosecution in adult court and won't face the harsh sentence an adult might face. The problem, the ACLU notes, is that if she's found guilty she is likely to be placed on a sex offender registry, where she would face the same stigmas as someone who commits violent sex crimes. That could lead to difficulties finding a job or obtaining housing. The ACLU's brief doesn't mention whether the boy was charged for distributing the girl's photo to other classmates.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @02:30AM (6 children)
Prosecution itself is a harm. An adult that would use a child as a pawn in such a game should be horse whipped as a child abuser. The law should certainly be changed, but not at the expense of the girl's future psychological well being. Let the prosecutor loudly refuse to prosecute and dare the legislature to say otherwise. That is, let the grown up be the grown up. Hiding behind a 14 year old girl is shameful.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @03:29AM (5 children)
Yes, so we should stop passing sinful laws all the time, and actively go fix them. Until then, we officially decided we like being horrible people by a fair legal process. We are a democracy, (just like Nazi Germany was). Perhaps we should vote in less shitty law makers, and/or vote in a better system under which to vote in less shitty law makers. Occasionally having someone claiming justice stand against the enforcement of the law is vigilantism. This is almost always a bad thing.
Our legal process is setup such that judicial change requires a trial case. If that process is too horrible (or stupid: I think its stupid), then we should review the insane way our courts work, and should have done that 200 years ago. The people want their existing (broken?) system, so they should have it. If they want to build in some kindness they should elect people to write it into the laws.
I freaking hate common law, and this case is an example of what it does to people when combined with our stupid legal code. I don't think this problem is one where the Prosecution should go against the will and law of the land though.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 01 2018, @04:41AM (3 children)
You seem to have a clear cut, black and white view of the world. On or off, up or down, nothing in between. How about the concept of unintended consequences?
There was a time, when it was impossible to circulate images widely. Then, it became possible, if one were to go to a lot of trouble - that is, paying scribes to copy those images, or text. Then the printing press came along. Then photography. Moving pictures. Then 8mm home films. Still, at that time, it required more money and effort than the typical youth could invest to make images of naked youth. At that point in time, a bit of youthful nudity might be captured by loving parents, but the nudity was incidental to some other theme. Child pornography still wasn't a thing. It may have been conceived at this point in time, but it still wasn't a thing. The original child pornography laws were probably being written at this time. No one could have dreamed that in several decades, children would have the ability to take nude pics, and post them on the web, for the entire world to view.
Today, a child being silly and irresponsible can come to the attention of prosecutors around the world. Snap a pic, send it to a friend, and become the focus of investigations by police worldwide.
No, you simply do NOT use the law like it is being used here. Destroy a kid's reputation, employment and maybe educational future, possibly his/her entire life, because lawmakers a century ago couldn't envision today's technology. Law does not take precedence over morality.
Young girls have always showed a little flesh to young boys, since prehistory. And, boys have always sought to see more flesh. It's natural. So, today, they are doing it electronically? Big deal.
Update the laws? I like the idea. But only lowlife bastards are willing to sacrifice young virgins to their gods of law to get those updates. It takes little effort to destroy a little girl's life, using the law as a club. I say we make the extra effort to destroy prosecutor's lives. Let's club them with the law. Child endangerment laws sound about right. Prosecutors feel no guilt when they have beaten a kid into such dejection that suicide seems the only way out. Child endangerment. Let's get on that, alright?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @05:33AM (2 children)
Lot of talk. Who is going to be the one to enforce that? Who will be willing to hurt or kill the prosecutors who are untouchable by law?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 01 2018, @09:05AM (1 child)
I suppose a first step might consist of getting an attorney general involved?
Attorney.General@ag.state.mn.us
Ms. Swanson,
There are some outdated laws on the books, in Minnesota, and nationwide, that are being misused to harm children. One such example seems to be working it's way through the courts right now. Please refer to this legal brief filed by the ACLU regarding a 14 year old child, charged with child pornography - https://www.aclu-mn.org/sites/default/files/court_brief.pdf [aclu-mn.org]
It is my opinion that the prosecutor and other officers involved with the prosecution should be charged with child endangerment, and similar laws, designed to protect children.
You may wish to refer to a discussion in which I am participating, regarding this case - https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/12/31/1217219 [soylentnews.org]
No member of this discussion is a legal professional. Which, may be a good thing. Some of us may have a perspective that legal professionals will never have, without some prompting.
It is my position that it is natural for post-puberty youth to explore their sexuality. Young women have been showing flesh to young men since before recorded history. And, young men have responded in ways those young women have appreciated.
Nothing has changed in this electronic age of information. Young women want the attention of young men, so they show some flesh. The only thing that has changed is, that those images of flesh can be mass produced, and circulated to people that the young women never intended.
No "crime" was committed in this case, until the prosecutor filed a case which could put this young woman in prison, and destroy her life.
The endangerment here, is that the young woman could be beaten down by the prosecuting bully, until she feels her life is destroyed, then commits suicide. We have seen a number of cases in the past decade, where prosecutors have pushed things so far beyond reason, that their victims finally suicide.
The prosecutor has no concern for this young woman's health and welfare. Instead, he is USING her as a tool, to advance his career.
Please, intercede on this Jane Doe's behalf, in whatever capacity is possible. I urge you to take all reasonable actions, up to, and including, charging the prosecutor with child endangerment. His actions are equivalent to human trafficking - that is, he doesn't care about any consequences of his actions for the child involved.
Thank you,
name redacted
___________________________________________
Fortunately, perhaps, that the AG in question is a rather young looking female. And, if I may, I will observe that she looks attractive in her official photo. That may work to the endangered child's benefit.
If you have a better idea, please suggest!!
And, if you are able to come up with a better letter, please send it to Ms Swanson at the address above!! Maybe send it to some federal AG? Let me look into that . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @10:04AM
Indecent exposure of the "justice" system to minors. Might scar them for life... Especially the girl who is getting prosecuted for distributing child porn.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @04:48AM
Actually, prosecutorial discretion is a legal thing here in the U.S. The prosecutor is free to decline to prosecute any case whatsoever if he feels it's not in the public interest.
He is also free to LOUDLY refuse to prosecute.
As a side note, I never voted for any of the legislators who passed such a stupid law (nor did I have standing to vote for their opponents, I don't live there).
I would certainly support a non-prosecution judicial review procedure to eliminate bad laws.